cannabisnews.com: L.A. Council Puts Off Vote on MMJ Dispensaries
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('L.A. Council Puts Off Vote on MMJ Dispensaries');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/25/thread25253.shtml');
 site = new Array(5);
 site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
 return false;
}






L.A. Council Puts Off Vote on MMJ Dispensaries
Posted by CN Staff on December 10, 2009 at 06:06:32 PT
By John Hoeffel
Source: Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles, CA -- The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday shunted a vote on its much-delayed medical marijuana ordinance most likely into next year, worried that the draft proposal could eliminate most dispensaries and lead to just a few "big-box" pot stores in isolated industrial areas.The unexpected decision slowed the breakneck schedule the council had adhered to in recent weeks in its drive to pass an ordinance before the end of the year. The council has been on fast-forward since October, when a judge ruled that the city's moratorium on dispensaries was invalid, leaving Los Angeles with almost no power to shut down hundreds that have opened without permission in the last two years.
But key council members had second thoughts about the council's decision Tuesday to require dispensaries to be at least 1,000 feet from any residences. The council, at the end of a marathon session, voted for the amendment even though city planners warned that it might eliminate most locations."I think by doing that, we just gutted the entire work that we have done," said council President Eric Garcetti, who pressed for the delay.He said that he believed the council's decision Tuesday to cap the number of dispensaries at 70 "is very cynical when in reality we know there's going to be about five or 10 mega-dispensaries that would be in industrial parks, and that's it."Overnight, the council appeared to shift its stance from speedily enacting a very restrictive ordinance that could be softened later to making sure the ordinance is right the first time. "I'm glad that we're not rushing something through," Garcetti said. "We can't get this wrong."Over the objections of several members, the council decided to wait until the Planning Department can finish maps that show how many sites are available 500 feet and 1,000 feet from so-called sensitive uses, such as schools, parks, churches and residences.S. Gail Goldberg, the city planning director, said she would like to finish both versions for each of the city's 35 community plan areas by next Wednesday, when the council is scheduled to review them. "I actually have my mapping people not doing anything else right now," she said. "I want to get this done."Councilman Ed Reyes, who oversaw the effort to write an ordinance, urged the council to "just take a deep breath" and wait for the maps."We are going to find that we have literally restricted this thing out of the city and that we will see ourselves in court because of the position we put ourselves in," he said.The council has known for years that it was likely to restrict dispensary locations. More than four years ago, then-Police Chief William J. Bratton recommended that dispensaries be kept from neighborhoods, schools and recreational areas. The first draft ordinance, written 20 months ago, prohibited dispensaries within a 1,000-foot radius of a list of sensitive uses that is similar to those in the current draft.Reyes said he asked for the maps several months ago. City planners did submit sample maps in September for two community plan areas using 1,000-foot buffers.Goldberg said the planning department, with its limited resources, was unable to complete the maps before the council altered the location criteria, which means the mappers have to take new data into account."This was a huge task for the Planning Department to take on," she said.Alan Bell, a senior city planner, said that creating the maps involves analyzing multiple sets of data and making calculations for every radius drawn. "It's not as simple as pushing a button," he said. "I have to say what we've done in the last few months has been unprecedented."Garcetti said he studied his council district Tuesday night and could not find any locations for dispensaries. "I was worried that all the work we had done and everything that we wanted to do had gone to the wind," he said. After some debate over removing residences from the list, Garcetti asked the council to wait for the maps. "Then we'll be able to do something that is . . . logical and fair," he said.A few council members urged the council not to put off a vote on the ordinance."We could have voted today. We have enough information. We don't need the maps," said Councilman Jose Huizar. "We have come a long way, and I think we have an ordinance that strikes a balance between neighborhood concerns and access."Reyes said he did not think the delay would make much difference and could lead to a better ordinance. "Let's be frank," he told the council, "not much is going to happen between now and the holidays."But Councilman Richard Alarcon said, "I say we do it and then we can truly have happy holidays."Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)Author: John HoeffelPublished: December 10, 2009Copyright: 2009 Los Angeles TimesContact: letters latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/URL: http://drugsense.org/url/Q14tRBtNCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 
     
     
     
     




Comment #8 posted by Hope on December 15, 2009 at 07:35:06 PT
"Wish"
Perhaps would be better said, "I'd like to have seen them".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Hope on December 15, 2009 at 07:33:32 PT
Article at comment 6
I wish they'd have just gone ahead and got fully twice the signatures they needed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on December 15, 2009 at 04:53:49 PT
News Article From The LA Times
Measure To Legalize Pot May Be on California's November BallotDecember 15, 2009URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marijuana15-2009dec15,0,436908.story
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by The GCW on December 10, 2009 at 13:12:49 PT
The threat and cost of lawsuits is real.
"""We are going to find that we have literally restricted this thing out of the city and that we will see ourselves in court because of the position we put ourselves in," he said."""-0-There is so many lawsuits that have supported cannabis activist causes that today the prohibs must take them into account on every move.It is awesome to read a lawsuit has been won by cannabis activists and the court orders the government to pay for the legal expenses of the cannabis activists.The prohib's will pay for Us to win. Great game.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on December 10, 2009 at 09:21:46 PT:
They're getting nervous...GOOD!
"Councilman Ed Reyes, who oversaw the effort to write an ordinance, urged the council to "just take a deep breath" and wait for the maps."We are going to find that we have literally restricted this thing out of the city and that we will see ourselves in court because of the position we put ourselves in," he said. Yup. And that's just what the prohibs wanted. To be able to say they're following the law, when the law is crafted by prohibs to shut down ALL the dispensaries. But the ploy is tissue-paper thin. People can see right through that, and the activists are ready for a fight. So we get mealy-mouth crap like this:"Goldberg said the planning department, with its limited resources, was unable to complete the maps before the council altered the location criteria, which means the mappers have to take new data into account."This was a huge task for the Planning Department to take on," she said."Yeah, right. And you're not concerned at all that you're putting your political neck in a noose, either. Suuuure you're not...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by HempWorld on December 10, 2009 at 08:52:04 PT
runruff
Yeah right! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by runruff on December 10, 2009 at 08:21:26 PT
1000 foot rule.
This market is preserved for LEOs.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on December 10, 2009 at 07:50:56 PT
good news
they knew they had a piece-of-junk bill and couldn't approve it. They got bullied by LEO. good for them to put it off.It seems like it's been like this for several years - they try to debate and set up rules, but they get bullied by LEO and end up with something that makes no sense at the end.And hopefully anything they pass, like the asinine 1000 foot rule, can be challenged with a lawsuit as being illegal under Prop. 215.Of course there is not a single shred of evidence or proof that locating a dispensary right next to a school will affect the school kids in ANY way.We are sinking into an age where American elected officials are nearly incapable of acting on problems. They take years to make simple decisions, and the decisions usually make problems worse. I suspect many of these LA councilors are afraid of having their dirty laundry exposed by the LAPD (such as drug-selling operations, extra-marital affairs, sexual orientation, etc). So they write the crime-inducing Prohibition-sustaining regs that LEO wants, but then as a group they just put it off voting indefinitely.At a small city near here, one city councilor crossed the local police chief, a few months later a restaurant he owned was busted - apparently there was a big cocaine-selling ring operating out of his restaurant (he was basically a drug dealer). One can only imagine the sleazy stuff the councilors are up to in an huge city like LA
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment